iTraffic strikes back, raises conflict

COLUMBIA — The company that provides the town of Ridgeland’s speed-camera system says one of its chief opponents in the General Assembly has a conflict of interest, a charge the lawmaker, Todd Rutherford, says is baseless.

In a letter Monday, iTraffic President Bill Danzell asked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison to appoint a new subcommittee to consider the legislation that targets iTraffic. Danzell said that because Rutherford’s law firm is among those challenging the town and the company, he should not serve on the panel that is now poised to consider the bill to ban the iTraffic photo-radar enforcement method.

Danzell copied his letter to House Speaker Bobby Harrell, Gov. Nikki Haley, The State newspaper, ABC News Charleston, the S.C. Municipal Association and AAA South Carolina.

The House Criminal Law Subcommittee, on which Rutherford serves, is scheduled to consider the camera-ban bill, S. 336, today.

“Because Representative Rutherford’s undeniable economic and professional interests, contrary to South Carolinians’ public safety interests, will bias his and other subcommittee members consideration and vote, I humbly request the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee to appoint a new Criminal Law Subcommittee, without conflicts or bias, to evaluate S-336,” wrote Danzell.

On Tuesday Rutherford rejected Danzell’s claims.

“The fact of the matter is that what the town of Ridgeland and iTraffic are doing is already illegal,” said the Columbia Democrat. “If it had a criminal penalty they would be in jail.”

He said he plans to participate fully in today’s subcommittee meeting.

“There’s not only no reason (for recusal), but it is the equivalent of a rapist coming in an asking the head of the Judiciary to take someone off because he’s going to ask some tough questions,” added Rutherford.

The legislation, introduced by Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, is the General Assembly’s second attempt to extinguish the town’s photo-radar enforcement system on a 7-mile piece of Interstate 95.

On Dec. 20 a class action complaint was filed by Rutherford’s law firm, Lord Law Firm and Strom Law Firm, which employs Rep. Bakari Sellers, D-Denmark.

However, last month the town of Ridgeland announced that U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt Jr. had dismissed key sections of the complaint.

“The three persons who have jury trial requests pending are being given an opportunity to amend their complaints to try to state a claim,” said the town’s attorney Tim Domin on Tuesday.

The suit was filed six months after the General Assembly passed the original bill to ban Ridgeland’s use of iTraffic, S. 1298. In August town officials proceeded to deploy the camera method, citing a legal interpretation by their attorneys that placed the system outside the new law’s reach.

But stalling Grooms’ bill isn’t likely to save Ridgeland’s camera system, which its chief proponent, Mayor Gary Hodges, argues has reduced highway deaths on the strip from a monthly average of 0.71 to zero.

A separate effort is moving through the legislative process in the form of a budget proviso. It also targets Ridgeland’s system and any others that could potentially be deployed around the state. The language was tucked into the spending plan passed by the House and is being considered by the Senate.

When contacted mid-morning on Tuesday, Harrison said he had not yet received Danzell’s letter.

“I can’t rearrange that subcommittee,” said the Columbia Republican. “If he (Rutherford) has a conflict of interest he should recuse himself, and I don’t know about his involvement in a lawsuit against that company.”